NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 19-3967
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MARK MELVIN,
AKA Jihad Jacobs,
AKA Mark Hall,
Appellant
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 2-99-cr-00560-002)
Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, U.S. District Judge
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
November 17, 2020
Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 20, 2020)
________________
OPINION*
________________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does
not constitute binding precedent.
KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.
Following his convictions for armed robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and
conspiracy to distribute narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, Appellant Mark Melvin
was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Less
than two years into that term of supervised release, however, he was arrested for multiple
violations of its terms and sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment. Following his
release, he again violated the conditions of his supervision and was sentenced, pursuant to
18 U.S.C § 3583(e), to a 14-month term of imprisonment to run consecutive to his then-
pending state sentence. Melvin now challenges the consecutive nature of that sentence as
substantively unreasonable. Because the District Court acted well within its discretion, we
will affirm.1
I. Discussion
Melvin’s sole contention on appeal is that because the sentence imposed by the
District Court was consecutive, rather than concurrent, it was “‘greater than necessary’ to
accomplish the goals of sentencing,” Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 101
(2007) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)), and therefore was substantively unreasonable. To
establish substantive unreasonableness, however, Melvin bears a “heavy burden.” United
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have jurisdic-
tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This Court reviews the “substantive reasonableness of a dis-
trict court’s sentence upon revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion.”
United States v. Doe, 617 F.3d 766, 769 (3d Cir. 2010).
2
States v. Clark, 726 F.3d 496, 500 (3d Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). We will “not sub-
stitute our judgment for the [district] court’s,” United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 543
(3d Cir. 2007), unless “no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sen-
tence . . . for the reasons the district court provided,” United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d
558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc).
Melvin cannot make that showing for two reasons. First, after “meaningful con-
sideration” of the § 3553(a) factors, id., the District Court reasonably concluded that “to
impose a sentence that is simply concurrent” would not “reflect[] the seriousness of what
occurred here” or “provide just punishment that would deter [Melvin] and deter others.”
AA55. Melvin’s actions were not only serious but reflected a pattern of significant
breaches of trust: He violated the terms of his supervised release on multiple occasions,
including by distributing drugs less than two years after his initial release from prison. In
addition to these violations, he was also convicted of unlawful weapons possession in re-
lation to the commission of an armed robbery, which involved the shooting deaths of two
people. Under these circumstances, a consecutive sentence was appropriate “to sanction
the defendant’s breach of trust while taking into account, to a limited degree, the serious-
ness of the underlying violation and the criminal history of the violator.” Bungar, 478
F.3d at 544 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Second, “[s]entences that fall within the applicable Guidelines range,” as the one
here did, “are more likely to be reasonable than those that do not,” United States v. Foun-
tain, 792 F.3d 310, 322 (3d Cir. 2015). Guidelines § 7B1.3(f) expressly provides that
“[a]ny term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of . . . supervised release shall
3
be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant
is serving, whether or not the sentence of imprisonment being served resulted from the
conduct that is the basis of the revocation.” U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f)
(U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2009). The imposition of Melvin’s sentence therefore aligned with
Section 7B1.3(f)’s “strong preference for a consecutive sentence in precisely the scenario
encountered here.” United States v. Banks, 743 F.3d 56, 58–59 (3d Cir. 2014).
In short, the District Court considered the § 3553(a) factors and Melvin’s argu-
ment for a concurrent sentence but concluded, based on his recidivist history and the Sen-
tencing Guidelines, that a consecutive sentence was warranted. We cannot say that “no
reasonable sentencing court” would have reached the same conclusion. Tomko, 562 F.3d
at 568. Thus, under our “highly deferential” standard of review, Bungar, 478 F.3d at
543, the 14-month consecutive sentence imposed by the District Court was not substan-
tively unreasonable.
II. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the sentence imposed by the District Court.
4
United States v. Mark Melvin
Combined Opinion